Feed the Future

Indicator Handbook

Originally published: March 2018 Revised version published: September 2019

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

Acronyms & Definitions 3

List of Indicators w/ hyperlinks to page locations 4

Introduction 8

Definition sheets (“Indicator Reference Sheets” or “IRS”) for all Indicators 27

53 Performance Indicators 27

25 Context Indicators 205

Appendix 1: List of Indicators by the FTF Results Framework 256

Appendix 2: List of Changes from the July 2016 version to the March 2018 version of the FTF Handbook

262

Appendix 3: List of Changes from the original March 2018 version of the FTF Handbook to this revised September 2019 version

279

3

ACRONYMS & DEFINITIONS

▪ BFS = Bureau for Food Security 


▪ F = Office of Foreign Assistance Resources at the Department of State

▪ FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions 


▪ FTF = Feed the Future 


▪ FTFMS = Feed the Future Monitoring System 


▪ GFSS = Global Food Security Strategy 


▪ HQ = Headquarters 


▪ IM = Implementing Mechanism (equivalent to a project or activity outside of USAID) 


▪ IRS = Indicator Reference Sheet (the definition of an indicator)

▪ M&E = Monitoring and Evaluation 


▪ MEL = Monitoring, Evaluation, & Learning 


▪ OP = Operational Plan (annual budget planning document done in

FACTSInfo/NextGen) 


▪ OU = Operating Unit (can be a USAID Bilateral Mission, Regional Mission,

Headquarters Office, Country post team, regional post team, and/or Washington-based

Feed the Future interagency bureaus and offices) 


▪ PIRS = Performance Indicator Reference Sheet 


▪ PPR = Performance Plan & Report (annual performance reporting document done in

NextGen) 


▪ TA = Technical Advisor 


▪ USAID = United States Agency for International Development

▪ ZOI = Zone of Influence (targeted geographic area where we work) 


4

LIST of INDICATORS & LOCATION of DEFINITION SHEETS

Indicator # Indicator TITLE & Link to Definition Sheet Page #

EG-c Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP [ZOI-level]

28

EG-d * Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP [National-level]

32

EG-e Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) [ZOI-level]

36

EG-f * Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) [National-level]

40

EG-g Percent of households below the comparative threshold for the poorest quintile of the Asset-Based Comparative Wealth Index [ZOI-level]

44

EG-h Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percent shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line [ZOI-level]

47

EG.3-2 Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs [IM-level] 50

EG.3-10, -11, -12 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USG assistance [IM-level]

55

EG.3-e Percent change in value-added in the agri-food system ("Ag GDP+") [National-level] 60

EG.3-f Abbreviated Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index [ZOI-level] 62

EG.3-g Employment in the agri-food system [National-level] 65

EG.3-h Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within target areas [ZOI-level] 67

EG.3.1-1 Kilometers of roads improved or constructed as a result of USG assistance [IM-level] 72

EG.3.1-14 Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment leveraged by the USG to support food security and nutrition [IM-level]

73

EG.3.1-c Value of targeted agricultural commodities exported at a national level [National-level] 75

EG.3.1-d Milestones in improved institutional architecture for food security policy achieved with USG support [Multi-level]

77

EG.3.2-2 Number of individuals who have received USG-supported degree-granting non-nutrition-related food security training [IM-level]

83

EG.3.2-7 Number of technologies, practices, and approaches under various phases of research, development, and uptake as a result of USG assistance [IM-level]

85

EG.3.2-24 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance [IM-level]

93

5

EG.3.2-25 Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance [IM-level]

99

EG.3.2-26 Value of annual sales of producers and firms receiving USG assistance [IM-level] 105

EG.3.2-27 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance [IM-level] 110

EG.3.2-28 Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies that promote improved climate risk reduction and/or natural resources management with USG assistance [IM-level]

114

CBLD-9 Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance [IM-level] 116

EG.3.2-a Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies [ZOI-level]

120

EG.3.3-10 Percent of female participants of USG nutrition-sensitive agriculture activities consuming a diet of minimum diversity [IM-level]

126

EG.4.2-7 Number of individuals participating in USG-assisted group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs [IM-level]

129

EG.4.2-a Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs [ZOI-level]

131

EG.10.4-7 Number of adults with legally recognized and documented tenure rights to land or marine areas, as a result of USG assistance [IM-level]

134

EG.10.4-8 Number of adults who perceive their tenure rights to land or marine areas as secure with USG assistance [IM-level]

136

ES.5-1 Number of USG social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets [IM-level]

138

HL.8.2-2 Number of people gaining access to a basic sanitation service as a result of USG assistance [IM-level]

140

HL.8.2-5 Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises [IM-level]

142

HL.8.2-a Percent of households with access to a basic sanitation service [ZOI-level] 144

HL.8.2-b Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises [ZOI-level]

147

HL.9-1 Number of children under five (0-59 months) reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs [IM-level]

150

HL.9-2 Number of children under two (0-23 months) reached with community-level nutrition interventions through USG-supported programs [IM-level]

154

HL.9-3 Number of pregnant women reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs [IM-level]

157

HL.9-4 Number of individuals receiving nutrition-related professional training through USG- 160

6

supported programs [IM-level]

HL.9-a Prevalence of stunted (HAZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months) [ZOI-level] 162

HL.9-b Prevalence of wasted (WHZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months) [ZOI-level] 165

HL.9-d Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age [ZOI-level] 168

HL.9-h * Prevalence of stunted (HAZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months) [National-level] 171

HL.9-i Prevalence of healthy weight (WHZ ≤ 2 and ≥-2) among children under five (0-59 months) [ZOI-level]

174

HL.9.1-a Percent of children 6-23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet [ZOI-level] 177

HL.9.1-b Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age [ZOI-level] 180

HL.9.1-d Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity [ZOI-level] 183

GNDR-2 Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources [IM-level]

186

RESIL-1 Number of host government or community-derived risk management plans formally proposed, adopted, implemented or institutionalized with USG assistance [IM-level]

189

RESIL-a Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index [ZOI-level] 192

RESIL-b Index of social capital at the household level [ZOI-level] 196

RESIL-c Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses [ZOI-level]

200

YOUTH-3 Percentage of participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources who are youth (15-29) [IM-level]

203

FTF Context-1 Percent of households below the comparative threshold for the poorest quintile of the Asset-Based Comparative Wealth Index [National-level]

206

FTF Context-2 * Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status (SDG indicator #2.3.2) [National-level]

[n/a]- SDG

FTF Context-3 * Volume of production per labour unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size (SDG indicator #2.3.1) [National-level]

[n/a]- SDG

FTF Context-4 * Percentage of 15-29 year olds who are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) (SDG indicator #8.8.6) - [National-level]

[n/a]- SDG

FTF Context-5 Prevalence of wasted (WHZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months) [National-level] 209

FTF Context-6 Depth of Poverty of the poor: Mean percent shortfall relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line [National-level]

211

FTF Context-7 U.S. government humanitarian assistance spending in areas/populations subject to recurrent crises [Recurrent crisis areas (if data not available, National)]

214

FTF Context-8 Number of people in need of humanitarian food assistance in areas/populations subject 216

7

to recurrent crises [Recurrent crisis areas (if data not available, National)]

FTF Context-9 Percent of people who are ‘Near-Poor’, living on 100 percent to less than 125 percent of the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line [ZOI-level]

218

FTF Context-10 Risk to well-being as a percent of GDP [National-level] 223

FTF Context-11 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities [National-level] 225

FTF Context-12 Average Standard Precipitation Index score during the main growing season [ZOI-level] 227

FTF Context-13 Average deviation from 10-year average NDVI during the main growing season [ZOI-level]

229

FTF Context-14 Total number of heat stress days above 30 °C during the main growing season [ZOI-level]

232

FTF Context-15 * Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture (SDG indicator #2.4.1) [National-level]

[n/a]- SDG

FTF Context-16 Prevalence of healthy weight (WHZ ≤ 2 and ≥-2) among children under five (0-59 months) [National-level]

234

FTF Context-17 Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age [National-level] 237

FTF Context-18 * Prevalence of undernourishment (SDG indicator #2.1.1) [National-level] [n/a]- SDG

FTF Context-19 Percent of children 6-23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet [National-level] 239

FTF Context-20 Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age [National-level]

242

FTF Context-21 Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity [National-level]

244

FTF Context-22 Food security and nutrition funding as reported to the OECD DAC [Global-level] 247

FTF Context-23 Share of agriculture in total government expenditure (%) [National-level] 249

FTF Context-24 Proportion of total adult rural population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized documentation and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure [National-level]

251

FTF Context-25 Percent of women achieving adequacy across the six indicators of the Abbreviated Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index [ZOI-level]

253

* Marks those that are also a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator – see details on SDG linkage below

8

Introduction The Feed the Future Indicator Handbook presents the set of performance management indicators for phase two of the U.S. Government’s (USG’s) Feed the Future initiative, guided by the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS). The set of indicators described in this Handbook are designed to measure progress against each result in the Feed the Future results framework (Figure 1). This results framework and the indicators identified at each level of this logic model help us monitor the causal flow from outputs to project outcomes to population - or system-level - outcomes to impacts, and supports our ability to assess the plausible contribution of our actions to the achievement of our impact. We will use indicator results, including from custom indicators, and performance narratives collected initiative-wide to monitor progress and system change along the impact pathway reflected in the Feed the Future results framework, to Feed the Future’s ultimate goal of sustainably reducing global hunger, malnutrition and poverty; and to support adaptive management, decision-making and resource allocation. Country post teams, regional post teams, and Washington-based Feed the Future interagency bureaus and offices are all referred to as Operating Units (OUs), and are “housed” under each USG interagency partner that reports performance data for Feed the Future. OUs and their implementing partners (IPs) use the Feed the Future standard indicators, appropriate custom indicators, and performance narratives to manage, adapt and report on performance of individual implementing mechanisms (IMs)1 and to monitor progress towards applicable

1 An IM “is a means of implementing a project to achieve identified results, generally through the use of a legally binding relationship established between an executing

agency (generally a U.S. Government agency like USAID or a host government agency) and an implementing entity (contractor, grantee, host government entity, public

9

outcomes and impacts in country- and IM-specific impact pathways and logic models. In addition, OUs and IPs use impact and performance evaluations to complement the monitoring tools above as a vital component of the Feed the Future Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) framework. Evaluation is not discussed in this handbook. At the goal level, we will measure hunger, malnutrition, and poverty among the population in Feed the Future target countries and in the Zone of Influence (ZOI). The ZOI is the targeted sub-national regions/districts where the USG intends to achieve the greatest household- and individual-level impacts on poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. In addition to tracking at the ZOI level, tracking goal level indicators at the national level helps capture our contributions to system-level change and better support partner countries in their attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). At lower levels of the results framework, indicators measure results at the national or ZOI population level, agriculture and food system level, and among project participants. Appendix 1 shows how the indicators are organized under the Feed the Future results framework.

Feed the Future phase two indicators The Feed the Future phase two indicators include two categories of indicators: standard performance indicators and standard context indicators.

Standard performance indicators Standard performance indicators measure results for which OUs are held accountable and against which annual or multi-year targets are set. All standard performance indicators are required-as-applicable (RAA) to ensure consistency of reporting and meaningful aggregation of results. The impact indicators of the goal and three objectives of the Feed the Future Results Framework are applicable to and thus required for all Feed the Future target country OUs. In addition, all OUs receiving Feed the Future funding are required to report on all indicators at the intermediate result (IR) or cross-cutting intermediate result (CCIR) level to which a Feed the Future-funded project2 contributes results. In other words, if an OU expects a project to generate results that are measured by the indicator, the OU must establish a baseline, set targets, and report results for the indicator. (See Appendix 1 to identify which indicators are associated with the Feed the Future goal, objectives, IRs and CCIRs). The standard performance indicators fall into three categories, based on the level at which data for the indicator are collected: (1) Implementing Mechanism (IM), (2) Zone of Influence (ZOI), and (3) National. (See Table 1 below.)

international organization, etc.) to carry out programs with U.S. Government funding. Examples of implementing mechanisms include contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, interagency agreements, bilateral project agreements, fixed amount reimbursement and performance agreements and cash transfers to host country governments, public-private partnerships, Development Credit Authority (DCA) agreements, and Development Innovation Venture (DIV) awards.” USAID Automated Directive System Chapter 201, Program Cycle Operational Policy, September 2016, page 142. See https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201, accessed 2/22/18.

2 The term “project” is used broadly in this document, and includes what is called an “activity” in USAID.

https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201

10

Indicators for Regional and Global Projects While some standard performance indicators are relevant to regional and global Washington-based investments and should be adopted as appropriate, many are not. Given the unique nature of regional and global investments, as outlined in the forthcoming Feed the Future regional guidance, these IMs should be monitored using primarily custom indicators tailored to each OU’s and IM’s specific theory of change as articulated through a logic model, and therefore a set of standard regional indicators will not be developed at this time. The USAID Bureau for Food Security (BFS) can assist regional and Washington-based OUs in the development of logic models and identification of indicators as needed. If multiple OUs identify similar custom indicators, these may become standard indicators in future versions of this Handbook. Implementing Mechanism-level Indicators. These 26 indicators monitor progress and results of specific IMs and represent results among the people and organizations who participate in the project’s interventions. IM-level indicators are collected by IPs and reported annually across all Feed the Future countries regardless of status. OUs should assign them to all IMs that are expected to produce results measured by that indicator. All IM-level indicators should only report results achieved in that reporting year; they are not reported cumulatively. ZOI-level Indicators. There are 20 indicators that measure conditions among the population in the ZOI, collected in target countries through a population-based survey. These are reported at baseline and through interim surveys every three years thereafter. Ten of these indicators measure impacts (and an outcome in one case) at the goal or strategic objective levels, and thus are required for target countries because country plans require inclusion of all three objectives. The remaining 10 are RAA, required for target countries only if programming is relevant to the indicator. Aligned countries that choose to define a ZOI are encouraged to monitor, set targets, and report on all relevant ZOI-level indicators. ZOI indicators are also collected in resilience focus areas subject to recurrent humanitarian crisis3, and by USAID’s Office of Food for Peace in development food security activity programming areas4. Both of these geographic areas might overlap in part or in whole with the target or aligned country ZOI, but a disaggregation of these areas is needed for other management purposes. National Indicators. There are six indicators that represent national-level conditions. Four are applicable to target countries, and two are applicable for all Feed the Future countries. See Table 1. The four that are applicable only to target countries are only reported when data are

3 In 2019, the countries with resilience to recurrent crisis areas will be Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Mali, Niger,

Nigeria, Somalia, S. Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe. 4 In 2018, Food for Peace development programs are implemented in the resilience zones in Ethiopia, Niger, Mali, and Uganda; and in Bangladesh,

Burkina Faso, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Haiti, Malawi, Madagascar, Nepal and Zimbabwe.

11

available from primary or secondary data sources. OUs are not required to directly fund data collection for national-level indicators, however, investment in strengthening national data systems capacity to collect timely and quality data is encouraged to support the country’s capacity to make informed policy, investment, and programmatic decisions. Three national-level indicators are goal-level indicators of hunger, stunting, and poverty, and are required for all target countries. These three are also Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators, against which countries set targets and monitor progress. Feed the Future is designed to support countries in the achievement of their goals, and our targets for these indicators will be the same as the countries’ SDG targets. Also required for target countries is the value added in the agriculture and food system indicator. The employment indicator, however, is RAA. Both indicators will be computed by the BFS and provided to the target country OUs. The final national-level indicator – exports of targeted commodities, and one multi-level indicator - milestones in improved institutional architecture, are RAA for all Feed the Future countries, and, if applicable, should be reported by Feed the Future OUs annually. Linkage to the SDG Indicators. As referenced above, we have included several SDG indicators in the Feed the Future phase two set of indicators. An SDG indicator is defined as Tier one (“Tier I”) if a definition exists and data for the indicator are available. Tier II indicators have been defined, but data for them are not yet widely available. Tier III indicators still need to de defined. All of our goal level SDG indicators are Tier I, while the context SDG indicators are a mix of Tier I and Tier III. The metadata, i.e. PIRS, for Tier I and Tier II SDG indicators are available at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/. Table 1: Feed the Future Performance Indicators by Level: Zone of Influence, National, and Implementing Mechanism (53 total Performance Indicators)

Zone of Influence (20 of 53 indicators)5 ● EG-c Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP* ● EG-e Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale

(FIES)* ● EG-g Percent of households below the comparative threshold for the poorest quintile of the Asset-Based Comparative

Wealth Index* ● EG-h Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percent shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line* ● EG.3-f Abbreviated Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index* ● EG.3-h Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within target areas ● EG.3.2-a Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies ● EG.4.2-a Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs ● HL.8.2-a Percent of households with access to a basic sanitation service ● HL.8.2-b Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises

5 ZOI indicators marked with an asterisk (*) are required for Feed the Future target countries; the remaining ZOI indicators are required-as-applicable.

https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/

12

● HL.9-a Prevalence of stunted (HAZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months)* ● HL.9-b Prevalence of wasted (WHZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months)* ● HL.9-d Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age* ● HL.9-i Prevalence of healthy weight (WHZ ≤ 2 and ≥-2) among children under five (0-59 months)* ● HL.9.1-a Percent of children 6-23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet ● HL.9.1-b Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age ● HL.9.1-d Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity ● RESIL-a Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index* ● RESIL-b Index of social capital at the household level ● RESIL-c Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses

National (6 of 53 indicators) ● EG-d Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP ● EG-f Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale

(FIES) ● EG.3-e Percent change in value-added in the agri-food system ("Ag GDP+") ● EG.3-g Employment in the agri-food system ● EG.3.1-c Value of targeted agricultural commodities exported at a national level ● HL.9-h Prevalence of stunted (HAZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months)

Multi-level (1 of 53 indicators) ● EG.3.1-d Milestones in improved institutional architecture for food security policy achieved with USG support

13

Implementing Mechanism (26 of 53 indicators) ● EG.3-2 Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs ● EG.3-10,11,12 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USG assistance ● EG.3.1-1 Kilometers of roads improved or constructed as a result of USG assistance ● EG.3.1-14 Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment leveraged by the USG to support food security

and nutrition ● EG.3.2-2 Number of individuals who have received USG-supported degree-granting non-nutrition-related food security

training ● EG.3.2-7 Number of technologies, practices, and approaches under various phases of research, development, and uptake

as a result of USG assistance ● EG.3.2-24 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or

technologies with USG assistance ● EG.3.2-25 Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance ● EG.3.2-26 Value of annual sales of producers and firms receiving USG assistance ● EG.3.2-27 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance ● EG.3.2-28 Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies that promote improved climate risk

reduction and/or natural resources management with USG assistance ● CBLD-9 Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance t ● EG.3.3-10 Percent of female participants of USG nutrition-sensitive agriculture activities consuming a diet of minimum

diversity ● EG.4.2-7 Number of individuals participating in USG-assisted group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs ● EG.10.4-7 Number of adults with legally recognized and documented tenure rights to land or marine areas, as a result of

USG assistance ● EG.10.4-8 Number of adults who perceive their tenure rights to land or marine areas as secure with USG assistance ● ES.5-1 Number of USG social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets ● HL.8.2-2 Number of people gaining access to a basic sanitation service as a result of USG assistance ● HL.8.2-5 Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises ● HL.9-1 Number of children under five (0-59 months) reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported

programs ● HL.9-2 Number of children under two (0-23 months) reached with community-level nutrition interventions through USG-

supported programs ● HL.9-3 Number of pregnant women reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs ● HL.9-4 Number of individuals receiving nutrition-related professional training through USG-supported programs ● GNDR-2 Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic

resources ● RESIL-1 Number of host government or community-derived risk management plans formally proposed, adopted,

implemented or institutionalized with USG assistance ● YOUTH-3 Percentage of participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic

resources who are youth (15-29)

14

Standard context indicators Standard context indicators provide information that helps to interpret performance results. They are only required for target countries, but aligned countries are also encouraged to track the population-level impact and outcome context indicators. Target country OUs are not held accountable for changes in these indicators and no targets are set for context indicators. Data should be reported as they become available from primary or secondary data sources; OUs are not required to collect primary data for context indicators. Context indicators will be used in standard processes like annual portfolio reviews and to interpret changes in the population-based survey data captured at the national or ZOI level. There are 25 standard context indicators. They are measured at the global (one indicator), national (17 indicators), ZOI (five indicators) and resilience area/national (two indicators) levels. USAID’s Bureau for Food Security will track the global food security and nutrition official development assistance funding and ZOI-level agro-ecological indicators; all target countries should track the national- and remaining ZOI-level context indicators and report on them when data are available from primary or secondary data sources. Two context indicators - of humanitarian need and assistance - are compiled by BFS and tracked by OUs in selected countries with areas and populations subject to recurrent humanitarian crisis, at the resilience zone level if data are available, otherwise at the national level. See Table 2. Table 2: Feed the Future Context Indicators by Level: Global, National, Zone of Influence, and Resilience to Recurrent Crisis areas (25 total Context Indicators)

National (17 of 25 indicators)

● FTF Context-1 Percent of households below the comparative threshold for the poorest quintile of the Asset-Based Comparative Wealth Index

● FTF Context-2 ** Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status (SDG indicator #2.3.2) ● FTF Context-3 ** Volume of production per labour unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size (SDG indicator

#2.3.1) ● FTF Context-4 * Percentage of 15-29 year olds who are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) (SDG indicator

#8.8.6) ● FTF Context-5 Prevalence of wasted (WHZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months) ● FTF Context-6 Depth of Poverty of the poor: Mean percent shortfall relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line ● FTF Context-10 Risk to well-being as a percent of GDP ● FTF Context-11 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities ● FTF Context-15 ** Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture (SDG indicator #2.4.1) ● FTF Context-16 Prevalence of healthy weight (WHZ ≤ 2 and ≥-2) among children under five (0-59 months) ● FTF Context-17 Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age ● FTF Context-18 * Prevalence of undernourishment (SDG indicator #2.1.1) ● FTF Context-19 Percent of children 6-23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet ● FTF Context-20 Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age ● FTF Context-21 Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity ● FTF Context-23 Share of agriculture in total government expenditure (%) ● FTF Context-24 Proportion of total adult rural population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized

documentation and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure

15

Zone of Influence (5 of 25 indicators)

● FTF Context-9 Percent of people who are ‘Near-Poor’, living on 100 percent to less than 125 percent of the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line

● FTF Context-12 Average Standard Precipitation Index score during the main growing season

● FTF Context-13 Average deviation from 10-year average NDVI during the main growing season

● FTF Context-14 Total number of heat stress days above 30 °C during the main growing season

● FTF Context-25 Percent of women achieving adequacy across the six indicators of the Abbreviated Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index

Recurrent crisis areas (if data not available, National) (2 of 25 indicators)

● FTF Context-7 U.S. government humanitarian assistance spending in areas/populations subject to recurrent crises

● FTF Context-8 Number of people in need of humanitarian food assistance in areas/populations subject to recurrent crises

Global (1 of 25 indicators) ● FTF Context-22

Food security and nutrition funding as reported to the OECD DAC

* Indicates an SDG indicator in TIER I status, i.e. a definition exists and data for the indicator are available. ** Indicates an SDG indicator in TIER II status, i.e. a definition exists but data are not regularly produced by countries.

Custom Indicators Feed the Future’s standard performance indicators are designed to capture key steps in the theory of change as reflected in the Feed the Future results framework, with an emphasis on outcome and impact indicators. However, each OU should have its own prospectively designed and continuously updated detailed logic model that clearly articulates how its activities lead to the desired outputs, outcomes, and impacts. It is unlikely that the set of standard Feed the Future performance indicators will be sufficient to monitor progress along that logic model, and to support learning and adaptation at an OU or IM level; therefore, custom indicators should be used. Custom indicators and custom disaggregates under standard indicators will likely be needed to capture key steps in the OU’s context- and intervention-specific logic model, although each step does not necessarily require an associated indicator. OUs and their partners can develop new custom indicators. They should also consider using ZOI-level indicators or proxies for those indicators as custom indicators to monitor key outcomes and impacts among project participants. For example, a poverty assessment tool based on population-based poverty data could be used to quantify a proxy indicator for poverty prevalence for IMs that are aiming to reduce poverty among participants. This can strengthen the plausible association between results among participants and changes measured at the ZOI level. Finally, OUs and IPs could use archived indicators from Feed the Future phase one; these indicators are listed in Appendix 2 for reference, and their definitions can be found in the old publication of the July 2016 version of the Handbook (https://feedthefuture.gov/resource/feed-future-handbook-indicator-definitions). The forthcoming guidance on monitoring for inclusive market system development will also contain a list of suggested custom indicators for market system facilitation activities.

https://www.agrilinks.org/library/feed-future-handbook-indicator-definitionshttps://www.agrilinks.org/library/feed-future-handbook-indicator-definitions

16

Data sources for ZOI indicators The preferred source of data for the ZOI population-based indicators is primary data collected via a representative population-based survey conducted in the ZOI6 using the Feed the Future ZOI Survey Guidance and Survey Methods Toolkit,7 hence collecting data for all applicable ZOI indicators in a single survey instrument.

Implementing Mechanism indicators (IM)

IM indicator universe is project participants IM-level indicators measure results obtained with participants, defined as individuals, enterprises, organizations, and other entities that participate in Feed the Future projects, including those reached directly, those reached as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy, and those participating in the markets we strengthen.8 9 An individual or entity is a participant if she/he/it comes into direct contact with the set of interventions (goods or services) provided or facilitated by the project. The intervention or set of interventions needs to be significant. An intervention is significant if one can reasonably expect, and hold OUs and IPs responsible, for achieving measurable progress toward changes in behaviors or other outcomes for individuals or entities receiving or accessing the goods or services provided by the intervention. As an example, producers with increased access to goods, services, and markets for their products and who purchase from or sell to market actors that have been strengthened as a result of our projects are considered to have received a significant intervention, and therefore are considered participants of market strengthening projects. However, if a person or entity is merely contacted or touched by a project or activity through attendance at a meeting or gathering, she/he/it should not be considered a participant. IPs must consider as participants and report results for the producers who directly interact with the firms assisted by the project (e.g. the producers who are customers of an assisted agro-dealer, the producers from whom an assisted trader or aggregator buys). IPs are not required to monitor and report on customers or suppliers who are not producers (e.g. other types of customers of assisted market actors that do not buy from or sell directly to producers). We direct IPs to take this approach in order to reduce their reporting burden in the already-

6 USAID's Office of Food for Peace development food security activity programming areas may or may not overlap in part or in whole with the target or

aligned country ZOI. 7 See https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods.

8 The definition of the universe covered by IM-level indicators has not fundamentally changed from Feed the Future phase one. We changed from using

the term project “direct beneficiaries” to using the term project “participants” to describe the universe captured by IM-level indicators to better align with market system-based approaches. The revised terminology also more clearly communicates that those with whom we work are active participants in their country’s development journey, to their own and others’ benefit. 9 The exception are IM indicators that count results directly achieved by the project, e.g. EG.3.1-1 Kilometers of roads improved or constructed as a result

of USG assistance, rather than results achieved with project participants.

https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methodshttps://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methodshttps://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods

17

challenging market system facilitation project monitoring context. However, we still want to capture information on the group - producers - that is critical to reach and about which we are most concerned on our likely pathways to impact. We recognize that allowing for the exclusion of other types of customers and suppliers from our reporting may underestimate our total impact. In cases where projects work with multiple individuals in a household, IM indicators only measure results for the participants in the household, not all of the members of the household. The only exception is in the case of sanitation services and family-sized rations, where all members of the household receiving the sanitation facility or ration are considered project participants. Participants who train other participants Individuals who are trained by an IM as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy (e.g., cascade training) should be counted as participants of the activity—the capacity strengthening is key for sustainability and an important outcome in its own right. As these participants then go on to deliver services directly to individuals, or to train others to deliver services, the individuals who receive the services or training delivered by the original participants should also be considered participants (with the exception of the non-producer customers or suppliers in the market system strengthening project context mentioned above). Counting individuals who participate in more than one Feed the Future project Individuals can benefit from more than one intervention under a Feed the Future project. For example, a producer who is purchasing inputs from an assisted firm may also be participating in community-level nutrition interventions implemented by an integrated agriculture-nutrition project. We expect IPs to track or estimate the number of individual participants across different interventions within their own project and to report numbers of participants under relevant indicators, not number of contacts with the project. Where multiple Feed the Future projects are reaching and reporting on the same population, OUs reporting aggregated OU-level results should track and/or estimate the extent of double-counting, and adjust the OU total prior to reporting. We do not at this time have any recommended tools or approaches to eliminate double-counting of participants, other than that described in the HL.9-1 children under five reached by nutrition-specific interventions indicator PIRS. However, where an OU has activities that are targeting the same population, we would expect that they are co-locating and coordinating across work plans, and that there should be a good sense on the ground of the extent of overlap of participants, in part because it should be deliberate and planned for in the logic model. Where IMs from more than one OU are targeting the same population, e.g. where a bilateral OU is funding a centrally-managed project to work with bilateral OU’s project, the bilateral OU could coordinate with the central OU and agree that the bilateral project will be responsible for

18

collecting data and reporting on all of the farm-level indicators or disaggregates, and that the centrally-managed IM will restrict its reporting only on outputs and outcomes among actors with whom they work directly. Indirect beneficiaries Spontaneous spillover of improved practices to neighbors does not count as a deliberate service delivery strategy; neighbors who apply new practices based on observation and/or interactions with participants who have not been trained to extend knowledge to others as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy are not considered participants and should not be included under IM-level indicators. This is because IM-level indicators do not measure results among the indirect beneficiaries of our activities. An indirect beneficiary is someone who does not have direct contact or interaction with the project or the actors whom the project is supporting, but still benefits. This includes the population that uses a new road constructed by the project, neighbors who see the results of the improved technologies applied by direct participants and decide to apply the technology themselves, or individuals who are only lightly touched by a project intervention, such as someone who hears a project-supported radio message but receives no training or counseling nor has any further interaction with the project or project-supported actors. Accurate tracking of indirect beneficiaries is challenging by nature, despite the fact that spillover is a core component of the Feed the Future theory of change. In general, spillover is captured in Feed the Future through measuring changes in ZOI population-level indicators (e.g. Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies) and through performance and impact evaluations. We also encourage the use of custom indicators to track changes specific to the project’s theory of change that go beyond direct participants. This may include using innovative primary or secondary data sources or methods.

Measuring results of market system strengthening projects Feed the Future, guided by the GFSS, places strong emphasis on inclusive and sustainable market system development to achieve its goal of sustainably reducing poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. Inclusive and sustainable market system development approaches work to improve three key components: a core market, supporting functions, and the formal and informal rules governing interactions. These facilitative approaches aim to address the underlying causes of poor performance in specific markets that matter to people living in poverty in order to create lasting changes that have a large-scale impact. Inclusive and sustainable market system development presents challenges in monitoring for scale and breadth of impact. Oftentimes the producer we are aiming to assist (e.g. a smallholder farmer) is not the actor with whom we work directly (e.g. a manufacturer), although both are considered project participants. Rules of the market system are governed by the relationships and incentives of market players, and are dynamic, complex, and hard to quantify. Feed the Future indicators described in this handbook capture some of the outcomes

19

of market system development. However, understanding the process of systemic change (the “how” to the “what”) is also critical to our learning and will require use of custom indicators. As a result, Feed the Future is promoting a multi-pronged approach to monitor market systems change that provides the space and tools necessary to measure progress.

● We promote mixed methods monitoring to measure market system changes to accommodate the size, complexity, and context of the market system. To better understand the depth and scale of impact due to facilitated interventions in the market systems, programs are encouraged to look at qualitative methods, such as system mapping, outcome harvesting, and most significant change stories.

● The new set of indicators better reflects the results of some aspects of market systems development work. This includes a heavier focus on national-level indicators as well as other indicators that can help show the impact of some of the facets of a stronger market system.

● Adding custom indicators and indicator disaggregates will be necessary to track the

specific results sought in a project’s theory of change. This is especially important since all projects should be designed to strengthen markets, and the set of standard indicators presented in this Handbook only capture a portion of the changes seen in a market system. BFS and the interagency are working on developing essential guidance and examples that will assist missions to measure market systems changes. This guidance will be made available later in the year.

Collecting indicator data on producer participants of market system strengthening projects Monitoring results for producer participants reached through market-strengthening projects can be particularly challenging. This is because IPs typically use a facilitative approach, where products and services are delivered to producers by assisted private sector firms. The firms are the logical source of information about the producers to whom they sell and from whom they purchase, but they may not have comprehensive customer or supplier lists or may not want to share the information. Building a loyal customer and supplier base, which is a profitability strategy promoted by many value chain activities, is greatly facilitated if a list of customers and suppliers is available. So helping assisted firms to set up and maintain such lists has both programmatic and M&E benefits and is encouraged. Data provision by assisted firms can be facilitated by entering into written agreements that include reporting and non-disclosure requirements10 and by helping assisted firms understand the business case for collecting the information.

10 Nondisclosure agreements must allow access to the data for USG-funded performance and impact evaluations.

20

Measuring results among producer participants should be more straightforward if the market-strengthening project is also facilitating extension strategies, e.g. assisting agro-dealer agents, who need to know where their customers live and farm. Extension and other customer outreach approaches are important to reinforce advice provided by the agro-dealer to her/his customers, or to provide the repeated contacts with smallholder producers needed for them to successfully apply the improved technologies and management practices promoted by the activity. If collecting the data from assisted firms required for some indicators is not possible, IPs should consider the concept of a "market shed"11 or "catchment area" to identify the geographic area that defines the population to be reached by the market being strengthened, and then conduct a survey among that population of producers who are participating in the market, and thus would be considered project participants. For example, a project is encouraging agro-dealers to use community agents to bring fertilizers closer to the target population and thus expanding the market shed of these fertilizer suppliers. The project could define the geographic area as the expanded market to be reached over time, and use surveys to collect baseline and annual data for applicable producer-level indicators from the population in that geographic area.

Indicator Disaggregates Reporting of disaggregates is required for all indicators. Targets should be set for IM-level indicators at the overall indicator and the disaggregate level. Targets are not required for the ZOI-level indicator disaggregates; they are only required at the overall indicator level.

Geospatial data Geospatial data that identify the location of our activities are extremely useful for performance analysis, particularly for examining where results are or are not achieved, whether environmental or climatic factors are affecting performance, and how activity results compare to impact-level results in the ZOI. Use of custom location disaggregates allow OUs and IPs to understand the spatial distribution of indicator results. In addition, IPs are required to track and enter geocodes or geospatial coordinates for their activities in the Feed the Future Monitoring System (FTFMS), as appropriate within security considerations. The location data component of FTFMS has greatly improved from previous years, in that it now allows for entry of location data down to the more-granular Admin 5 level, as well as lat/long coordinates, the ability to “bulk upload” several location data points at once through use of a standard template, and the ability to export all location data in machine-readable form for ease of pulling into a mapping platform, such as ArcGIS Online (“AGOL”), etc. Trainings on data entry and use of these new location features will be provided, including a “How to” video on the FTFMS Resources website (https://agrilnks.org/ftfms.

11 See, for example, http://harvestchoice.org/labs/market-sheds

21

The Feed the Future Monitoring System (FTFMS) The Feed the Future Monitoring System (FTFMS) is part of an interagency effort to consolidate USG reporting on Feed the Future projects. FTFMS indicator data and performance narratives are the official results for Feed the Future. They provide the foundation for public documents like the Feed the Future Progress Report and they inform decisions on future programming, policy planning, and budget allocations. Eleven USG agencies partner on food security efforts for Feed the Future and six of those agencies have historically contributed data to FTFMS, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Peace Corps, the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), and the Department of Treasury, which manages our USG contributions to the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). All partner agencies, even if they do not contribute indicator data to the FTFMS, write an annual Global Agency Performance Narrative (GAPN) that is included in the annual Implementation Plan submitted to Congress each fall, per the Global Food Security Act of 2016. Each USG partner agency has a different organizational structure, and therefore reports into FTFMS at varying levels. For example, USAID enters data into FTFMS at the activity level (via "Implementing Mechanisms" or "IMs"), while other agencies may report at the post, project, or global level. As mentioned above, OUs and IPs should design and use custom indicators as a way to better capture progress toward objectives and outcomes that are not fully covered by the standard indicators. FTFMS allows for the uploading of documents that contain custom indicator information (e.g. baseline, targets, actuals), and OUs and IPs are strongly encouraged to do so. While archived indicators will continue to be included in FTFMS and can be assigned to IMs as custom indicators, other custom indicators cannot be programmed into FTFMS at this time. We are working to redesign FTFMS to more easily incorporate custom indicators and disaggregates in addition to the standard indicators, and any progress on this effort will be communicated.

Entering ZOI PBS indicator data in FTFMS Feed the Future target countries, and possibly some aligned countries, have a focused geographic area, the ZOI, where the population-based survey is conducted to monitor ZOI indicators. Countries with populations subject to recurrent crisis and/or Food for Peace (FFP) development programming also have geographic areas in which programming is targeted and ZOI indicator data are collected, which may or may not overlap with the ZOI in target or aligned countries. FTFMS allows for data entry for each ZOI indicator under three programming areas: 1) Target (or aligned) country ZOI, 2) FFP development program area, and 3) Resilience to recurrent crisis areas. OUs or their M&E contractors should enter ZOI indicator values and population numbers under the appropriate area type.

22

Values for the ZOI indicators are entered into FTFMS by the OU or the OU’s survey implementer under the mechanism titled “High Level Indicators – [COUNTRY NAME]”, which is pre-programmed into FTFMS for each OU. In addition to entering the ZOI indicator values, the estimated total population and population by disaggregate categories must be entered for the relevant programming area. For example, the prevalence of poverty indicator measures the percent of people in the ZOI with average per capita consumption under $1.90/day. The relevant population numbers to enter are the estimated total population of individuals in each gendered household type for the relevant programming area (Target/Aligned Country ZOI, FFP, or resilience programming area). In contrast, the prevalence of households with moderate or severe hunger measures the percent of households, not individuals, so the relevant population numbers to enter are the estimated number of households of each gendered household type in the ZOI, FFP, or resilience programming area. Stunting, underweight, and wasting are all measured for children under 5. The relevant population numbers to enter are the estimated number of male and the estimated number of female children under 5 years of age in the ZOI, FFP, or resilience programming area. It is important that OUs ensure that information on the population in the ZOI, FFP, or resilience programming area under the different ZOI indicator disaggregates is provided by the survey implementer. Use of the mandatory ZOI Survey Report Template12 will ensure that all required information is included in the report. Note: Sometimes sample surveys are used to collect data for IM-level indicators, and in this case IPs must ensure that survey estimates are appropriately sample-weighted (weights are applied to “sample estimates” to generate “population estimates”) and, where necessary, extrapolated to the total participant level prior to entering the data into FTFMS under their specific IM (not under the “High Level Indicators – [COUNTRY NAME]” mechanism, which is only reserved for reporting on OU-level totals). Entering national-level indicator data in FTFMS As described above for ZOI population-based indicators, estimated population numbers are also required when entering national-level population-based performance and context indicators into FTFMS. In addition, OUs should include the source of the national-level data and the year the data were collected in an Indicator Comment. This information is needed because national-level data collected in a different year or with a different method from the ZOI data may not be comparable and differences between them must be interpreted with caution.

12 See https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods.

https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methodshttps://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods

23

Transitioning to the Feed the Future phase two indicators13 Existing IMs that end on or before September 30, 2019 are not required to shift to the phase two indicators, although they are encouraged to adopt new indicators if feasible. Existing IMs that end after September 30, 2019 are required to adopt all applicable new indicators, working with their A/CORs and AO/CO to make the transition in accordance with their agreement or contract. New IMs (i.e. those awarded in late 2017 or later) are required to use all applicable new indicators. IMs and OUs were required to set FY19, FY20, and FY21 targets for the new indicators during the FY18 results reporting in October 2018. IMs and OUs will be required to report FY19 results for the new indicators when FTFMS opens for FY19 results reporting in October 2019. If IMs or OUs had FY18 results to report for any of the new indicators in October 2018, they were highly encouraged to do so, as long as the results being reported fully aligned with the new indicator definitions. For indicators that are revised from phase one as opposed to completely new, IMs or OUs should only report on one version of the indicator in any given year to avoid double-counting, and should only report on the revised indicator or disaggregate if reporting fully aligns with the definition. See the list of these ‘pairs’ of old indicators that have revised versions in the new set, plus a full list of all the indicators and what happened during the transition in Appendix 2, as well as at this link: https://www.agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/quick_reference_pairs_of_fy18_indicators_and_notes_on_all_indicators_fy18.xlsx. If existing IMs adopting new outcome indicators can provide a baseline from existing data on old indicators, they should do so, entering the appropriate source year of the data from the old indicator as the baseline year for the new indicator. See Appendix 2 for a list of Feed the Future phase one indicators that could inform the baseline for Feed the Future phase two indicators. Otherwise, existing IMs adopting new outcome indicators can leave the baseline information blank.

13 USAID FFP has a different timeline for indicator transitioning and will communicate with implementing partners directly.

https://www.agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/quick_reference_pairs_of_fy18_indicators_and_notes_on_all_indicators_fy18.xlsxhttps://www.agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/quick_reference_pairs_of_fy18_indicators_and_notes_on_all_indicators_fy18.xlsx

24

Summary table of the transition:

Type / Age of Implementing

Mechanism (IM)

What was done in FTFMS for FY

2018
 (Oct/Nov 2018)

What to do in FTFMS for FY 2019 (Oct/Nov 2019)

Already-awarded and

operating IMs that end on or before

September 30, 2019

• Report results achieved during FY2018 on the current set of old (i.e. Feed the Future phase one) indicators • Set targets for any remaining project years on the current set of old indicators

• Report results and set targets on the existing set of old indicators until the IM ends

Already-awarded and

operating IMs that end after September 30,

2019

• Report results achieved during FY2018 on the current set of old indicators • Report results achieved in FY2018 on any new (i.e. Feed the Future phase two) indicators if complete indicator definition is met • Set targets for any remaining project years on the set of new FTF phase two indicators • Set targets for any remaining project years on any old indicator on which the IM wishes to continue reporting (then delete remaining old indicators from FTFMS)

• Report results achieved during FY2019 on the new set of FTF phase two indicators • Set targets for remaining project years on the new set of FTF phase two indicators • Report results and set targets on any continued reporting on any old indicator on which the IM wishes to continue reporting(1)

New activities that

haven't ever reported on old indicators(1, 2)

• Report results achieved during FY2018(2) on the new set of indicators • Set targets set for out-years on new set of indicators

• Continue reporting results and targets on the new set indicators

(1) Old indicators will still be available in FTFMS, but would be considered custom, if used.

(2) New activities or IMs, depending when they started, may not have results achieved during FY2018 to report on, but

should still set targets for the out-years and begin reporting results in FY19, or as early as applicable.

25

Changes to the Feed the Future phase one indicators that will continue to be reported under Feed the Future phase two See Appendix 2 for a list of changes and clarifications to Feed the Future phase one indicators that will continue to be reported on under phase two. Where changes to the indicator definitions are such that it is not appropriate to compare results reported under the phase one indicator to results reported under the phase two indicator, the phase two indicator has been assigned a new number, and the phase one indicator has been dropped.

Foreign Assistance Standard Indicator and Performance Plan and Report (PPR) Reporting (USAID only) ZOI- and national-level indicators do not appear in the F Master List of PPR Indicators for selection by OUs, even though they follow a similar numbering scheme for consistency. OUs can include them in the PPR as custom indicators. These indicators are included in FTFMS, however, and Feed the Future target country OUs, and aligned country OUs if applicable, should report on all required and RAA ZOI- and national-level indicators under the mechanism titled “High-Level Indicators [COUNTRY NAME]”, available for each OU in FTFMS. BFS and the Bureau for Global Health will assign IM-level indicators to the OUs in the PPR based on their programming and Mission objectives. OUs can opt out of reporting on these indicators in the PPR by providing a justification as to why the indicator is not applicable. OUs are encouraged to report on appropriate custom indicators in the PPR. While indicators are reported at the IM-level in FTFMS, they are only reported at the aggregated OU-level in the PPR, i.e. the contributions of all activities’ results for an indicator summed up for an OU total. FTFMS provides a PPR report that does this aggregation automatically so that data can more easily be copied and pasted into the PPR. Note, however, that this aggregation simply adds up all results from contributing IMs for each indicator. It does not remove any double-counting of results in cases where more than one IM is reporting results for the same participants. For example, if one IM is providing training in application of improved agronomic practices and a second is strengthening traders and aggregators, the same producers could be participating in both projects and being counted twice. OUs should adjust for any double-counting before entering the aggregated total for the indicator into their PPR.

Indicators and Measures Under Development Several indicators and other measures were put into a “Placeholder” or “Under Development” category during the development of this new Handbook. Here are brief status updates on each of those:

26

Policy Matrix A Country Policy Progress Indicator is under development to measure the progress a country has achieved in completing prioritized policy changes that will accelerate agriculture and food system growth and transformation. The measure will be based on empirical data detailed in the 12 Feed the Future target country policy matrices developed in concert with policy stakeholders in each country. The policy progress indicator value will be computed using data on the level of progress for each policy action reported in the policy matrix on an annual basis: on hold, behind target, on target, or complete. This policy progress indicator complements indicator “EG.3.1-d Milestones in improved institutional architecture for food security policy achieved with USG support [Multi-level]”, which looks at milestones toward an improved policy system. The two indicators will relate the performance of the policy system with actual policy changes, including both development and implementation of priority policies.

Resilient Systems We are working with several stakeholders to conceptualize and identify indicators for different dimensions of a resilient agri-food system, particularly related to resilient markets, risk management, and ecological systems. We have added the World Bank indicator 'Risk to Well-Being' as a context indicator, and continue to work on identifying indicators for market system resilience and ecological systems resilience.

Capturing diplomatic efforts via narrative Diplomatic efforts by the USG on food security are critical to the success of the initiative, even though executed and measured differently than traditional development activities. We had originally proposed an indicator “Value of funding to support food security and nutrition committed through bi-, tri-, and multi-lateral partnerships in which the USG participates [IM or Partnership-level]”, but have decided to drop that indicator as one not best-suited for capturing the nuances and complexities of our diplomatic work. Instead, we will collect results of our diplomatic efforts in narrative form, which will ensure the information is systematically and institutionally captured as part of the formal MEL system. Specifically, our commitment to tracking results of global diplomatic work through other avenues will include a narrative overview on the work done by the State Department’s Office of Global Food Security (S/GFS) and a dedicated section in the GFSS Implementation Report on the results the USG achieved during the previous year through global diplomatic efforts, similar to what was included in the 2018 Global Engagement Report here: https://www.feedthefuture.gov/resource/u-s-government-global-food-security-strategy-implementation-report-of-2018/ (see pp. 32-34 highlighting multilateral efforts). We can build on this example to make sure that each year we are showcasing the vital contributions Feed the Future agencies and departments make in advancing the global agenda.

https://www.feedthefuture.gov/resource/u-s-government-global-food-security-strategy-implementation-report-of-2018/https://www.feedthefuture.gov/resource/u-s-government-global-food-security-strategy-implementation-report-of-2018/

27

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

28

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS)

SPS LOCATION: Category EG: Economic Growth INITIATIVE AFFILIATION: Global Food Security Strategy – Goal: Sustainably reduce global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty

INDICATOR TITLE: EG-c Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP [ZOI-level]

DEFINITION: This GFSS goal-level indicator is one of the measures of the Sustainable Development Goal 1 (SDG 1) “End Poverty in all its forms everywhere”. Also called the poverty headcount index, it measures the proportion of the population that is counted as poor:

Where is the number of people in the population, is the per capita consumption (or income) of individual “i” in the population, and

z is the poverty line. I is an indicator function equal to one if the expression in parentheses is true and zero otherwise. So, if consumption of an individual is less than the poverty line, she/he is counted as poor, while if it is equal or above the poverty line, she/he is not counted as poor. The applicable poverty line is $1.90 per person per day at 2011 PPP, which is the current international extreme poverty line (the $1.90 per person per day at 2011 PPP has replaced the $1.25 at 2005 PPP in 2015). The indicator follows the World Bank PovCalNet methodology to measure poverty in individual countries in a way that is comparable across countries. See Ferreira et al. (2015)14 for more details on the current methodology and explanations on how the methodology was adjusted over time. The indicator uses household-level consumption data from a ZOI representative household survey. Hence, while the indicator reports the percent of people in the ZOI that are poor, data are actually not collected at the individual level. Instead, average daily consumption of a household is divided by the number of household members to come up with an average daily per capita consumption estimate for the household. In this approach, every household member is assumed to have an equal share of total consumption, regardless of age and potential economies of scale. In practice, the indicator is calculated by dividing the total sample-weighted number of people in poor households by the total sample-weighted number of people in all sample households with consumption data. The result is multiplied by 100 to get a percent. Consumption data are usually used instead of income data because of the difficulty in accurately measuring income, and because consumption is easier to recall and more stable over time than income, especially among agricultural households. Data are collected using the household consumption module of either the Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) or the Feed the Future ZOI survey depending on the vehicle used to collect the population-based indicators. Through the survey, data on consumption are collected on food and non-food household items, whether purchased or produced by the household, durable goods use and replacement value, and housing costs and characteristics (for more details, see the Feed the Future ZOI survey consumption module from the core questionnaire (Reference: https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods). A consumption aggregate is calculated by summing all household consumption, valued in local currency after bringing them to a common recall period (as the relevant time frame varies between the different consumption categories). Durable goods are incorporated into the consumption aggregate by estimating a value of services that the household derives from the durable goods over the time period, as the appropriate measure of the consumption of these goods. Similarly, housing is included in the aggregate by estimating or imputing a rental value of the dwelling used by the household, whether it is owned, rented, or otherwise occupied. For more details on the calculation of the consumption aggregate, see Guide to Feed the Future Statistics (Reference: https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods). Individual household average daily per capita consumption is compared to the international poverty line of $1.90 2011 PPP to determine if

14 Ferreira, F., et al., A Global Count if the Extreme Poor in 2012: Data Issues, Methodology, and Initial Results, World Bank Policy Research Working

Paper #7432, October 2015: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/22854

https://www.state.gov/f/releases/other/255986.htmhttps://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methodshttps://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods

29

a household is poor (consumption falls below the poverty line) or non-poor (consumption is equal to or above the poverty line). To do the comparison, the international poverty line must be converted to the country local currency unit (LCU) using the 2011 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) exchange rate. Using exchange rates based on PPP conversion factors (instead of market exchange rates) allows adjustment for price differences between countries, such that a dollar has the same purchasing power across countries. The 2011 PPP conversion factors for Feed the Future target countries are presented in Table 1 below. These were obtained from the World Bank, World Development Indicators: http://databank.worldbank.org. The $1.90 poverty line converted to local currency using the 2011 PPP must then be converted to the local prices prevailing the year, and month of the survey using the country’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). The government official source for CPI data should be used. To calculate the local currency equivalent to the $1.90 poverty line at the prices prevailing during the year of the survey, the general formula is as follows:

Where the subscript ‘t’ refers to the year, or month and year as relevant, when the survey was conducted.

RATIONALE: This indicator is one of the measures for the goal of the Global Food Security Strategy to: “Sustainably reduce global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty”. All three objectives and underlying intermediate results and cross-cutting intermediate results seek to contribute one way or the other to reduce poverty in the GFSS Zone of Influence. This indicator allows for comparison across countries and for tracking the number of poor in the population targeted by USG interventions. This indicator is one of the SDG 1 “End Poverty in all its forms everywhere” indicators and is linked to the Global Food Security Strategy Goal: Sustainably reduce global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty.

UNIT: Percent

DISAGGREGATE BY: Gendered household type: Male and Female Adults (M&F), Adult Female No Adult Male (FNM), Adult Male No Adult Female (MNF), Child No Adults (CNA)

TYPE: Impact DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Lower is better

MEASUREMENT NOTES

➢ LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Data for this indicator are collected from a random sample of households in the ZOI (i.e. the targeted sub-national regions/districts where the USG intends to achieve the greatest household- and individual-level impacts on poverty, hunger, and malnutrition.)

➢ WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR:

Primary data: The national statistics office under the LSMS-ISA+ national data systems strengthening activity or an M&E contractor.

Secondary data: M&E contractor or Post staff

➢ DATA SOURCE: Primary data: Primary data are collected via a population-based survey conducted in the ZOI using the Feed the Future Survey Methods Toolkit (https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods)

Secondary data: National poverty survey, if the data were collected within the previous two years. Location variables are used to identify records corresponding to the ZOI in the secondary data set, and the secondary data analysis is then conducted using those records.

https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods

30

➢ FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION:

Data should be collected at baseline, and during each subsequent ZOI-level population-based survey thereafter. ZOI refers to three types of ZOIs: 1) the target or aligned country ZOI (i.e. the targeted sub-national regions/districts where the USG intends to achieve the greatest household- and individual-level impacts on poverty, hunger, and malnutrition), 2) Office of Food for Peace development program areas, and 3) Resilience to recurrent crisis areas.

➢ BASELINE INFO: A baseline is required, and the value is from the FTF phase two baseline ZOI survey.

REPORTING NOTES

FTFMS DATA ENTRY NOTES:

• USAID Missions or the M&E contractor should enter ZOI-level values under the “High Level Indicators – [COUNTRY NAME]” mechanism in the FTFMS.

• Enter the year that data were collected in the field under the Indicator Comment. If field data collection spanned two years, enter the year field data collection began.

• Enter the value of the prevalence of poverty at the $1.90 2011 PPP threshold for the overall indicator and for each GHHT disaggregate category under the appropriate ZOI/area category (Target or Aligned Country ZOI, FFP development program area, or Resilience to recurrent crisis area).

• Enter the total number of people in the ZOI/area and for each GHHT disaggregate category in the appropriate ZOI/area category (Target or Aligned Country ZOI, FFP development program area, or Resilience to recurrent crisis area),

For example, a GFSS Target Country entering data from the Feed the Future ZOI baseline survey would enter:

1. Year of field data collection in the Target Country ZOI [in the Indicator Comment] 2. Sample-weighted percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP in the Target Country ZOI 3. Total number of people in the Target Country ZOI

4. Sample-weighted percent of people in M&F households living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP in the Target Country ZOI 5. Total number of people in M&F households in the Target Country ZOI

6. Sample-weighted percent of people in FNM households living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP in the Target Country ZOI 7. Total number of people in FNM households in the Target Country ZOI

8. Sample-weighted percent of people in MNF households living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP in the Target Country ZOI 9. Total number of people in MNF households in the Target Country ZOI

10. Sample-weighted percent of people in CNA households living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP in the Target Country ZOI 11. Total number of people in CNA households in the Target Country ZOI

31

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FTFMS AND PPR (USAID only):

▪ ZOI-level indicators are not included in the PPR master indicator list. Missions may include them in PPR reporting as custom indicators.

___________________________________ * To inflate/deflate the national poverty line to the ZOI survey year, multiply the value by the CPI ratio as follows:

Where is the year of the survey used by the host country government to calculate the national poverty line and is the ZOI survey year.

Table 1: PPP 2011 Conversion Factor, Private Consumption (LCU per international $)

GFSS Target Countries PPP 2011

Bangladesh 24.849

Ethiopia 5.439

Ghana 0.788

Guatemala 3.873

Honduras 10.080

Kenya 35.430

Mali 221.868

Nigeria 79.531

Niger 228.753

Nepal 25.759

Senegal 246.107

Uganda 946.890

Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators, Updated 11/15/2017

32

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS)

SPS LOCATION: Category EG: Economic Growth INITIATIVE AFFILIATION: Global Food Security Strategy – Goal: Sustainably reduce global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty

INDICATOR TITLE: EG-d Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP [National-level]

DEFINITION: This GFSS goal-level indicator is one of the measures of the Sustainable Development Goal 1 (SDG 1) “End poverty in all its form everywhere”. Also called the poverty headcount index, it measures the proportion of the population that is counted as poor:

Where is the number of people in the population, is the per capita consumption (or income) of individual “i” in the population, and

z is the poverty line. I is an indicator function equal to one if the expression in parentheses is true and zero otherwise. So, if consumption of an individual is less than the poverty line, she/he is counted as poor, while if it is equal or above the poverty line, she/he is not counted as poor. The applicable poverty line is $1.90 per person per day at 2011 PPP, which is the current international extreme poverty line (the $1.90 per person per day at 2011 PPP has replaced the $1.25 at 2005 PPP in 2015). The indicator follows the World Bank PovCalNet methodology to measure poverty in individual countries in a way that is comparable across countries. See Ferreira et al. (2015)15 for more details on the current methodology and explanations on how the methodology was adjusted over time. The indicator uses household-level consumption data from a nationally representative household survey. Hence, while the indicator reports the percent of people in the country that are poor, data are actually not collected at the individual level. Instead, average daily consumption of a household is divided by the number of household members to come up with an average daily ‘per capita’ consumption estimate for the household. In this approach, every household member is assumed to have an equal share of total consumption, regardless of age and potential economies of scale. In practice, the indicator is calculated by dividing the total sample-weighted number of people in poor households by the total sample-weighted number of people in all sample households with consumption data. The result is multiplied by 100 to get a percent. Consumption data are usually used instead of income data because of the difficulty in accurately measuring income, and because consumption is easier to recall and more stable over time than income, especially among agricultural households. Data are collected using the household consumption module of the Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) or another nationally representative household survey with a complete household consumption module. A consumption aggregate is calculated by summing all household consumption, valued in local currency, after bringing them to a common recall period (as the relevant time frame varies between the different consumption good categories). For more details on the calculation of the consumption aggregate, see here: https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods. Individual household average daily per capita consumption is compared to the international poverty line of $1.90 2011 PPP to determine if a household is poor (consumption falls below the poverty line) or non-poor (consumption is equal to or above the poverty line). To do the comparison, the international poverty line must be converted to the country local currency unit (LCU) using the 2011 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) exchange rate. Using exchange rates based on PPP conversion factors (instead of market exchange rates) allows adjustment for price differences between countries, such that a dollar has the same purchasing power across countries. The 2011 PPP conversion

15 Ferreira, F., et al., A Global Count if the Extreme Poor in 2012: Data Issues, Methodology, and Initial Results, World Bank Policy Research Working

Paper #7432, October 2015: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/22854

https://www.state.gov/f/releases/other/255986.htmhttps://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methodshttps://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods

33

factors for Feed the Future target countries are presented in Table 1 below. These were obtained from the World Bank, World Development Indicators: http://databank.worldbank.org. The $1.90 poverty line converted to local currency using the 2011 PPP must then be converted to the local prices prevailing the year and month of the survey using the country’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). The government official source for CPI data should be used. To calculate the local currency equivalent to the $1.90 poverty line at the prices prevailing during the year of the survey, the general formula is as follows:

Where the subscript ‘t’ refers to the year, or month and year as relevant, when the survey was conducted.

RATIONALE: This indicator is the equivalent of EG-c: Prevalence of poverty at the ZOI level. Because Feed the Future phase two emphasizes market linkages, systemic changes, and the enabling environment, this indicator measures the impact beyond the ZOI from economy-wide effects of Feed the Future interventions. Reporting poverty level in the entire country also allows for comparing the socio-economic situation in the Zone of Influence to the situation at the national level, and track differential changes happening in the ZOI. This indicator aligns with the SDG1, “End poverty in all its forms everywhere” and is linked to the Global Food Security Strategy Goal: Sustainably reduce global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty.

UNIT: Percent

DISAGGREGATE BY: Gendered Household Type (if possible): Male and Female Adults (M&F), Adult Female No Adult Male (FNM), Adult Male No Adult Female (MNF), Child No Adults (CNA)

TYPE: Impact DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Lower is better

MEASUREMENT NOTES

➢ LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Data for this indicator are collected in a national-level, population-based, representative, random sample survey.

➢ WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR:

Primary data: The national statistics office under the LSMS-ISA+ national data systems strengthening activity

Secondary data: The M&E contractor or Country Post staff

➢ DATA SOURCE: Primary data: Primary data are collected via a nationally representative population-based poverty survey

Secondary data: Population-based surveys used by official statistics to report on prevalence of poverty, such as the Living Standard Measurement Survey (LSMS).

➢ FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION:

As data are available.

➢ BASELINE INFO: The baseline is the value from the most recent national survey.

34

REPORTING NOTES

FTFMS DATA ENTRY NOTES:

• USAID Missions or the M&E contractor should enter National-level values under the “High Level Indicators – [COUNTRY NAME]” mechanism in the FTFMS.

• Enter the source of data and the year that data were collected in the field under the Indicator Comment. If field data collection spanned two years, enter the year field data collection began.

• Enter the value for the overall indicator and for each GHHT disaggregate category, if possible.

�